Use Your myFollowTheMoney Login

Or

Welcome to myFollowTheMoney, the customized e-mail alert community with deeper access to the unique and powerful data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

By creating a free myFollowTheMoney account, you’ll not only be able to download our data for your own exploration, you can also receive updates from us on the issues you care about. In addition, you’ll be signed up to receive our quarterly newsletter, packed with insider information on the hot topics facing money in state politics.

We will not share, rent, or sell your e-mail address with any other individual or organization.

Prior to the January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling, the state of Washington had allowed corporations and unions to use treasury money to fund independent expenditures in state campaigns. As such, independent money spent in the 2010 election was comparable to the 2006 elections. Institute researchers discovered that although Washington requires detailed reporting of independent expenditures, intermediary PACs often make finding the original contributors more tedious. "Taking the Low Road" diagrams how difficult it can be to follow money from donors through "shell" PACs to the races they targeted.

UPDATE JUNE 21, 2012: After the report's initial publication on September 6, 2011, the Institute discovered that certain data had been duplicated. The Institute has since fixed the data and updated the report accordingly.

The opinions and views in the report do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Institute's funders.

Independent Spending in Washington, 2006-2010

Overview

The Supreme Court’s January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling had little impact on independent spending on Washington’s 2010 state elections, because the state had already allowed corporations and unions to use treasury money to fund independent expenditure activity on state campaigns.

The $5.3 million of independent spending in the 2010 election was slightly less than the $5.5 million spent during the comparable 2006 elections, and little change was seen in the type of spender. It remains to be seen if that will change the next time the state holds a highly competitive statewide race, as occurred during the 2008 gubernatorial race between Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire.

Overall, independent spending that targeted Washington state races consistently paled in comparison to the direct campaign contributions made during the five elections studied from 2006 through 2010. The most money was spent during the 2008 gubernatorial election, when independent expenditures were 41 percent of the total direct contributions. In total, the $37 million spent independently was just 17 percent of the $214 million raised in direct campaign contributions.

Five committees made more than half of all the independent spending in the five-year study period.

Washington in general requires detailed reporting of independent expenditures that is helpful for knowing who made the expenditure, who the expenditure was supporting or opposing, and when the expenditure was made. Although Washington requires committees to list their top five contributors on independent expenditure ads,1 often intermediary PACs are created, and one has to dig through several levels of filings to find the actual contributors.Taking the Low Road displays how difficult it can be to follow money from donors through the “shell” PACs to the races they targeted.

In addition, many of the committees making independent expenditures were tied to trade associations or unions, which are not required to publicly disclose their sources of funding. Others are funded by 527 organizations, whose donors can be found in their reports filed with theIRS.

Methodology

The National Institute on Money in State Politics collects independent expenditure reports filed by individuals and committees with state disclosure agencies in states that provide robust disclosure. These states define “independent expenditure” and “electioneering communication” in statute at least as thoroughly as the federal definition.

The Institute used the information provided on disclosure reports to assign an occupation code to the filers. When that information was not provided, staff conducted additional research to determine a filer’s economic interest, where possible. The occupation codes are based on the Standard Industrial Classification system used by the federal government.

If an expenditure lists multiple targets, and the amount paid does not specify how much was attributable to each target, the target amount is left blank. Therefore, the total spent on each target may be under-reported.

The Institute does not equate money spent in opposition to one candidate with money spent in support of that candidate’s opponent and instead discusses the money spent on each race. Only expenditures made for the purpose of influencing state elections were reported.

Washington also has three different forms to file independent expenditures.2 Any independent expenditure over $1,000 filed 21 days or less from the election is likely to be duplicated, so the Institute tried to remove these duplications whenever possible.

Filers in Washington are allowed to report expenditures targeting multiple candidates, so it is not always clear how much money targets each of the reported candidates. Thus, whenever this report refers to money spent independently on specific targets, the amounts used in this report will not match number on our website.

State of Disclosure in Washington

The state of Washington defines an independent expenditure as meeting all of the following criteria:3

Political advertisement that supports or promotes the defeat of a clearly identified candidate for state, local, or judicial office;

Paid for by someone other than a candidate, a candidate’s committee, or agent;

Sponsor does the advertising completely independently of any candidate supported in the ad (or the opponent of the candidate opposed), or a candidate’s committee or agent;

Sponsor did not receive the candidate’s encouragement or approval to do the ad;

May include non-advertising expenditures, e.g., paid doorbelling supporting a candidate or ballot measure;

May appear at any time, anywhere (note special reporting deadline when appearing within 21 days of an election and fair market value is $1,000 or more);

May appear in any format or medium; and

May support or oppose just ballot measures.

Electioneering communications can also be independent expenditures if they meet both the independent expenditure criteria and the following:4

Communication that clearly identifies at least one candidate for state, local, or judicial office;

Paid for by someone other than a candidate, a candidate’s committee or agent;

Sponsor does the advertising completely independently of any candidate or a candidate’s committee or agent;

Sponsor did not receive the candidate’s encouragement or approval to do the ad;

Either alone, or in combination with other communications by the sponsor identifying the candidate, has a fair market value of $5,000 or more;

Appears within 60 days of an election in the candidate’s jurisdiction;

In one or more of the following media – radio, television, postal mailing, billboard, newspaper, or periodical; and

Does not include communications relating to just ballot measures.

Reporting requirements are detailed for expenditures over $100; anything over that amount must be itemized to show who the expenditure targeted and how much went to supporting or opposing that target.

Collecting all of the independent expenditures in Washington for a given year can be a daunting task, as the expenditures are scattered across multiple forms. Independent expenditures are filed on three main forms: the state’sC-6 form, theC-4 form, theC-7 form.

There is no set schedule for reporting independent expenditures. Reports are due either within 5 days of making an expenditure over $100 or within 24 hours if it is $1,000 or more within 21 days of an election. Any electioneering communication of $5,000 or more made within 60 days of an election must be reported within 24 hours.5

Washington requires relatively thorough information about targets and vendors to be reported, although sub-vendor information and obligation dates are not required. Further, the Institute’s review of the reports reveals that filers do not always fill out all of the information that is required; for example, the targets or vendors are not always identified, or the vendor purpose is left blank. Independent expenditures with unidentified targets total $2 million since 2006, or 5 percent of the total spending.

To ensure the viewers know who paid for the expenditures, the state’s independent spending law requires disclaimers to be placed on advertisements. Independent expenditure ads must clearly state, “No candidate authorized this ad. It is paid for by (name, address, city, state),” and the top five contributors over $700 to the committee must be listed, along with the full name of the committee sponsor. Political parties, however, are exempt from reporting their top five contributors.6

Key Targets and Spenders in Washington, 2006–2010

Committees and individuals spent $37 million independently in Washington from 2006 through 2010, far less than the $214 million raised by candidates, ballot measure committees, and party committees via direct contributions.

Top Targets

The 2008 gubernatorial race between Gov. Christine Gregoire and her challenger, Dino Rossi, attracted 52 percent of the total amount of independent expenditures, making it the top targeted race during the five elections. An additional $9.3 million targeted legislative candidates, nearly $2.1 million targeted other statewide candidates, $3 million targeted judicial candidates, and $503,474 targeted ballot measures. Washington has no limits on direct contributions to ballot measure committees,7 which may explain the low amount of independent spending targeting ballot measures.

The gubernatorial race also made 2008 the biggest election for independent expenditures, with $25.5 million spent—$19.3 million of which targeted the highly competitive governor’s race. Considerably less was spent during the 2006 and 2010 elections, when no statewide races were on the ballot.

Almost $34 million was spent targeting candidates, accounting for 91 percent of all state level independent expenditures. The rest of the money targeted ballot measures or had unidentified targets. The largest amount, $16.6 million, targeted Democratic candidates (mostly in opposition).

Five committees were responsible for more than half of the independent expenditures made during the five-year study period. Some, such as People for Jobs, are PACs funded by other PACs, which makes it harder to find out who their contributors were.

While some committees formed solely to make independent expenditures, others made both independent expenditures and direct contributions. For example, the Washington Association of Realtors contributed the maximum amount ($1,600) to house candidate Kevin Parker in 2008 in addition to independently spending $20,909 to support him.8

TABLE 3: Top Independent Spenders in Washington, 2006–2010

Spender

2006

2007

2008

2010

Total Independent Spending

Building Industry Association of Washington

$1,564,626

$0

$7,398,153

$4,206

$8,966,985

Washington State Republican Governors Association

$0

$0

$4,749,342

$0

$4,749,342

Evergreen Progress

$0

$0

$4,718,685

$0

$4,718,685

Washington Association of Realtors

$306,330

$1,891

$1,363,410

$342,864

$2,014,495

People for Jobs

$0

$0

$731,720

$1,187,729

$1,919,449

TOTAL

$1,870,956

$1,891

$18,958,310

$1,534,799

$22,368,956

All but 16 of the 48 individuals reporting independent spending were candidates (state laws in Washington prohibit candidate committees from contributing directly to other candidates or other candidate committees). Individuals only spent $64,166 independently.

Spenders representing the construction industry spent nearly $9.5 million—$9 million of which was spent by groups that belong to the National Association of Home Builders. Liberal policy groups were the next largest spenders with $7.6 million, followed by conservative policy groups ($6.4 million), labor unions ($2.8 million), and real estate ($2.1 million).

How the Money was Spent

Nearly 51 percent of the $37 million, or $18.7 million, was spent on broadcast media advertising. Another $13.2 million was spent on direct mailings, and $1.7 million on get-out-the-vote efforts.

Shell Games in Washington

Despite the detailed reporting requirements Washington has for independent expenditures, some spenders have found ways to be evasive about their funding sources. For example, Jason Bennett, a partner with the political consulting firm Argo Strategies, sponsored9 Evergreen Progress and at least five other groups in 2008: Better Future for Washington, Citizens for Change, Citizens to Uphold the Constitution, Families to Re-elect our Governor, and People for Stable Economy. These committees spent a total of $5.4 million in 2008.

The top contributors to Evergreen Progress—the second-largest independent spender from 2006 through 2010—were the Democratic Governors Association, the Washington State Council SEIU, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the National Education Association.

Bennett’s company, Argo Strategies, is also a vendor for several of the groups that listed Bennett as treasurer (Better Future for Washington, Citizens for Change, and People for Stable Economy), along with being a vendor for the Washington State Council SEIU and Washington Conservation Voters. Argo Strategies received $250,672 as a vendor for independent expenditures from 2006 through 2009.

2008 is not the first time that committees sponsored by Bennett made independent expenditures—Bennett sponsored nine organizations in 2006: Democrats Who Have Had Enough, Seniors Who Have Had Enough, Working Families Who Have Had Enough, the Harry Truman Fund, the Roosevelt Fund, Ceasefire Action Committee, Central Washington PAC, Citizens to Uphold the Constitution, and Save the 48th, all of which spent a total of $1.5 million. He also sponsored Vote for Justice in 2007; King County Citizens for Port Reform, and People for Responsible Government in 2009; and Impartial Justice in 2010. PACs connected to Bennett expended a total of $6.5 million from 2006 through 2010, mainly supporting Democratic candidates and opposing Republican candidates.

Bennett is not alone in being a sponsor for multiple shell PACs. Philip Lloyd, a financial advisor and owner of Project Accounting, in 2010 registered dozens of committees for independent expenditures. PACs connected to Lloyd spent $1.1 million in 2010. Despite some having names like “Conservative PAC,” the only time these PACs were against Democratic races was when there was another Democrat running. For instance, in the Senate District 38 primary, Stand Up for Citizens spent $157,568 opposing Jean Berkey (D) and spent $76,785 in support of Nick Harper (D).

While most of Lloyd’s PACs list their main contributors as other PACs that Lloyd is treasurer of (for example, Win PAC receives its contributions from Victory PAC), those main contributing PACs are funded mostly by unions, such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE), the Washington State Labor Council’s Don’t Invest in More Excuses (DIME) PAC, and a handful of others. For a graphical representation of how the money flowed from funders through PACs controlled by Lloyd to the targeted races, see the Institute’sTaking the Low Road.

TABLE 4: Philip Lloyd’s Independent Spending Committees

Independent Expenditure Committees

Main Contributing PACs

Top funders of Main Contributing PACs

Targeted Races

Advance PAC

Upward PAC

WFSE/Public School Employees of Washington

H 047 Position 2

Boost PAC

Build PAC

DIME PAC/WFSE

H 030 Position 2

Choice PAC

Action PAC

SEIU Washington State Council

H 045 Position 1, S 045

Cut Taxes PAC

Conservative PAC

Moxie Media/2nd Defense

S 038

Families PAC

Basic PAC

Washington State Council of Fire Fighters

H 047 Position 1

For the People

2nd Defense/Forward PAC

DIME PAC/WFSE

H 002 Position 2

Gain PAC

Better PAC

DIME PAC

H 044 Position 1

Headway PAC

Rise PAC

SEIU Healthcare 775NW

H 001, Positions 1 and 2

Healthy PAC

Safety PAC

SEIU Washington State Council

S 006

Independence PAC

Unity PAC

Roosevelt Fund

S 047

Protect PAC

Moderate PAC

SEIU Washington State Council

H 028 Position 2

Stand Up for Citizens

Progress PAC (along with direct contributors such as the DIME PAC)

SEIU Washington State Council

S 038

Stand For Citizens

None

DIME PAC/Public School Employees of Washington

S 044

Stand With Citizens

Improve PAC

SEIU Washington State Council/WFSE

S 041

Stride PAC

Move PAC

DIME PAC

H 028 Position 2

Strong PAC

Care PAC

WFSE

S 006

Together PAC

Succeed PAC

DIME PAC/WFSE

H 047 Position 1

Top PAC

Champion PAC

DIME PAC/WFSE

H 045 Position 1, S 045

Win PAC

Victory PAC

SEIU Washington State Council/Teamsters Local 117

H 017 Position 1

The political consulting firm Moxie Media came under scrutiny during the 2010 elections for violating campaign finance laws.10 All of the PACs sponsored by Philip Lloyd in 2010 list Moxie Media as a vendor, and they paid Moxie Media $692,233 in 2010. The remaining $193,741 paid to Moxie Media came from Bennett’s Impartial Justice PAC and several of the main funders to both Lloyds and Bennett’s PACs, including SEIU Washington State Council.11,12 Moxie Media has received $1.3 million since 2006 as a vendor for independent expenditures.

2010 Elections in Washington

In 2010, a total of $5.3 million in independent expenditures targeted state campaigns, amounting to 6 percent compared to the total direct contributions raised.

TABLE 5: Top Races Drawing Independent Spending in Washington, 2010

Targeted Offices

Races Targeted

Total Races

Support

Oppose

Unspecified

Total

Senate

20

25

$806,118

$1,297,243

$47,673

$2,151,033

House

59

98

$1,169,038

$661,288

$56,294

$1,886,621

Supreme Court

2

3

$35,333

$256,719

$0

$292,051

Ballot Measures

9

9

$8,793

$53,546

$0

$62,340

Unspecified*

n/a

n/a

$2,500

$0

$755,992

$758,492

TOTAL

90

135

$2,021,782

$2,268,796

$859,959

$5,150,537**

* “Unspecified” refers to reports that did not indicate a target.

**This total is lower than the overall total for 2010 since some spenders targeted mulitple candidates. Candidates for local and federal offices may be included in the overall totals for those spenders.

The most independent expenditures targeted James M. Johnson, an incumbent in Supreme Court District 1 who ran against Stan Rumbaugh in the primary election. All but $2,267 of $258,986 targeting him was spent to oppose his reelection. Opposition money came from two groups: Fuse Washington and Impartial Justice (a shell committee sponsored by Jason Bennett of Argo Strategies). Johnson ended up beating Rumbaugh with almost 62 percent of the vote.

Another race of note was the primary race for Senate District 38, between incumbent Sen. Jean L. Berkey, Nick Harper, and Rod Rieger.13 Only $189,437 was raised by the candidates in direct contributions but an additional $314,791 was spent on the race independently. The largest amount of those independent expenditures ($187,901) went to oppose Berkey, who identifies as a Democrat. Harper, also identified as a Democrat, was perceived as being more liberal and had $101,421 spent in support.14

A majority of the expenditures targeting Senate District 38 was made by Stand Up for Citizens, a shell PAC run by Philip Lloyd, which spent $157,568 opposing Berkey and $76,785 supporting Harper. Cut Taxes PAC, another shell PAC run by Lloyd, spent $3,953 opposing Berkey and $4,703 supporting Rieger. Berkey lost in the primary election to Harper by 602 votes and to Rieger (who identifies himself as a conservative) by 122 votes out of 20,497 votes cast for that district. Harper went on to beat Rieger by a landslide in the general election.

A total of $2.4 million was spent targeting Democratic candidates: $1.3 million in support and $1 million in opposition. The rest of the money spent had unknown positions. A total of $1.6 million was spent targeting Republican candidates: $692,039 in support and $910,293 in opposition, with the rest listing unknown positions.

Enterprise Washington’s JobsPAC was the top contributor to People for Jobs. At $130,000,Altria is Enterprise Washington’s largest contributor. Enterprise Washington15 is also closely tied to the Business Institute of Washington.16 The Washington Association of Realtors’ Realtors Quality of Life PAC also received $10,000 from Enterprise Washington’s JobsPAC. Trade associations and unions are not required to publicly disclose their funders, so it is impossible to determine the origin of most of the money from the Washington Association of Realtors and the Washington Education Association.

How the Money was Spent

Most of the independent expenditures were made in the form of direct mailings ($3.8 million), broadcast media ($604,598), and get-out-the-vote efforts ($595,684).

2009 Elections in Washington

Independent expenditures in 2009 totaled $540,289, targeting two ballot measures. Over half of the money ($337,428) was spent on unidentified targets.

Top overall independent spenders in 2009 were Focus on the Family ($182,765), Forward Seattle ($112,468), and Affordable Housing Council ($80,097). Focus on the Family spent almost all of their independent money opposing Referendum 71, while Forward Seattle and Affordable Housing Council did not report a target or a position for any of their spending.

TABLE 7: Top Races Drawing Independent Spending in Washington, 2009

Target

Independent Spending For

Independent Spending Against

Unspecified Independent Spending

Total

Referendum 71

$3,523

$187,272

$0

$190,795

Initiative 1033

$476

$3,610

$0

$4,086

Unspecified

$0

$0

$337,428

$337,428

TOTAL

$3,999

$190,882

$337,428

$532,309

Only $4,086 was spent independently on Initiative 1033, a measure concerning state, county, and city revenue that would have imposed revenue caps and lowered property taxes. In contrast, $190,795 was spent independently on Referendum 71, a measure concerning the right to legal domestic partnerships, with $3,523 expended in support, against $187,272 spent in opposition. The direct contributions for that same Referendum 71, however, show an opposite pattern from the independent spending: $2.1 million was raised in support, compared to only $283,052 raised in opposition.

$176,689 was spent on broadcast media, $112,512 was spent on mailings, and $97,728 was spent on get-out-the-vote efforts.

The top vendors in 2009 were Laguens Hamburger Kully Klose, political consultants and media production ($101,968); Design4 Advertising, political marketing ($80,000); and Advantage Inc, political marketing and telephone communications ($71,593).

2008 Elections in Washington

In 2008, $25.5 million in independent expenditures targeted 85 state races and two ballot measures.

TABLE 8: Top Races Drawing Independent Spending in Washington, 2008

Targeted Offices/Measures

Number of Races Targeted

Total Number of Races

Independent Spending For

Independent Spending Against

Unspecified Independent Spending

Total

Governor

1

1

$2,140,199

$17,103,644

$60,224

$19,304,068

Statewide

6

8

$1,323,502

$648,710

$86,555

$2,058,767

House

57

98

$1,348,870

$447,274

$72,178

$1,868,322

Senate

18

26

$131,572

$615,189

$19,662

$766,423

Judicial

3

10

$77,831

$20,000

$6,485

$104,317

I-1000

n/a

n/a

$0

$45,789

$0

$45,789

I-985

n/a

n/a

$0

$10,142

$0

$10,142

Unspecified

Unspecified

Unspecified

$1,790

$23,035

$349,523

$374,523

TOTAL

85

143

$5,023,764

$18,913,783

$594,627

$24,532,174

The top five spenders in 2008 were the Building Industry Association of Washington ($7.4 million), Washington State Republican Governors Association ($4.8 million), Evergreen Progress ($4.7 million), Washington Association of Realtors ($1.4 million), and the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ($1 million). Of those top spenders, only Evergreen Progress and the Washington State Republican Governors Association were required to disclose their funding sources. The top funder for Evergreen Progress was the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), which contributed $2.8 million (the DGA’s largest contributor in 2008 was AFSCME with $1.2 million). The Washington State Republican Governors Association received most of its funding from its parent company, the Republican Governors Association (RGA). The RGA’s biggest funder in 2008 was Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager who is a major contributor to Republican candidates and issues, who gave$750,000.17

The hotly contested 2008 gubernatorial race attracted $19.3 million in independent expenditures, which is more than the combined total ($11.5 million) spent in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010.

The 2008 race was a re-match of the close 2004 election between Dino Rossi and Christine Gregoire.18 The independent expenditures targeting Rossi and incumbent governor Gregoire came close to matching the $23.6 million raised directly by the candidates themselves.

$11.3 million independently targeted Christine Gregoire, $10.9 million of which was spent to oppose her. Dino Rossi had $8 million independently targeting him, $6.2 million of which was spent to oppose him.

Almost all of the independent money spent opposing Gregoire came from two organizations: the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) at $6.4 million, and the Washington State Republican Governors Association (WRGA) at $4.4 million. Both organizations also paid for independent expenditures supporting Rossi ($712,841 from BIAW and $333,130 from WRGA). Nearly three-fourths of Rossi’s opposition came from Evergreen Progress (one of six shell PACs registered to Jason Bennett in 2008), which spent $4.5 million to oppose Rossi.

Most of the money ($16.3 million) was spent on media. Another $6.7 million was spent on mailings, and $668,014 on political consultants.

2007 Elections in Washington

Six measures were on the 2007 state ballot. Independent expenditures in 2007 totaled $160,160—$118,610 of it, however, had unidentified targets, which impedes analysis of the impact this money had on election outcomes in 2007. The remaining amount was spent on one ballot measure.

TABLE 9: Top Races Drawing Independent Spending in Washington, 2007

Target

Independent Spending For

Independent Spending Against

Unspecified Independent Spending

Total

Referendum 67

$41,550

$0

$0

$41,550

Unspecified

$0

$0

$118,610

$118,610

TOTAL

$41,550

$0

$118,610

$160,160

Connelly Law Offices independently spent $41,550 to support Referendum 67, a measure related to fair conduct for insurance claims. Committees formed around Referendum 67 raised the largest amount of regular contributions among ballot measures in 2007, with $3.8 million in support and $11.5 million in opposition. Despite the money spent and given to oppose the measure, it ended up passing with 57 percent of the vote.

The Seattle Fire Fighters Union Local 27 ($59,558), Connelly Law Offices ($41,550), and an unidentifiable group named Vote for Justice ($27,848) were the top three independent spenders in 2007. Connelly Law Offices spent their money solely in support of Referendum 67. Neither the Seattle Fire Fighters Union nor Vote for Justice reported their targets.

Overall, $62,228 was spent on get-out-the-vote efforts, $38,812 was spent on mailings, and $11,890 was spent on miscellaneous printing.

The top vendors were Laurus Associates ($56,116) and Moxie Media ($27,848).

2006 Elections in Washington

Six individuals and 57 committees independently spent $5.5 million during Washington’s 2006 elections. Legislative and state supreme court candidates were the target of 96 percent of the expenditures. Three percent was spent on ballot measures.

Ten committees made 80 percent of all independent expenditures.

Top Spenders in 2006

The 10 committees responsible for making 80 percent of all independent expenditures were varied. The three top groups that focused mostly on state supreme court races—Citizens to Uphold the Constitution, Building Industry of Washington, and Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse—spent more than $2.6 million, representing 47 percent of all independent expenditures made in Washington in 2006. These groups, not the candidate campaign committees, paid for all of the television advertising related to the Washington Supreme Court elections.19

TABLE 10: Top Independent Spenders in Washington, 2006

Spender

Total

Building Industry Association of Washington

$1,564,626

Citizens to Uphold The Constitution

$646,768

Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse

$357,500

Harry Truman Fund

$333,596

Washington Association of Realtors

$306,330

Roosevelt Fund

$300,400

Citizens Action Group

$287,200

Working Families Who Have Had Enough

$280,091

Affordable Healthcare Coalition

$191,935

Justice for Washington

$112,534

TOTAL

$4,380,980

The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), which seeks to limit regulation of the building industry, was the largest spender, focusing $1.3 million primarily on state supreme court races. In addition, the BIAW spent $223,813 on legislative races. The BIAW also made direct campaign contributions to two supreme court candidates: $2,800 to Stephen Johnson and $1,400 to John Groen.

Citizens to Uphold the Constitution, “a broad coalition of retired judges and Washington State Bar Association presidents, community leaders and elected officials including former Gov. Gary Locke,”20 was active in all three state supreme court races, independently spending a total of $646,757 in support of all three incumbents’ successful bids for reelection, and in opposition to their challengers. Three donors alone provided almost half of the committee’s funds used to make these expenditures, each giving $100,000 or more: the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, and the Washington State Council of Service Employees.21

The Washington chapter of Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse spent $357,500 on a supreme court race in District 8.

The Harry Truman Fund, a PAC that supports Democratic candidates for the state house of representatives, independently spent $333,596. In addition, the committee gave over $294,250 in direct campaign contributions to candidates and party committees.

The $2.6 million in independent expenditures targeting the three supreme court races was 48 percent greater than the $1.8 million raised directly by the eight candidates.

Two supreme court candidates had more spent independently to support them than they themselves raised in contributions. John Groen directly raised $454,033 for his unsuccessful campaign to unseat Justice Gerry Alexander; about twice as much ($843,485) was spent independently to support Groen. Stephen Johnson directly raised $354,115 in his unsuccessful effort to unseat Justice Susan Owens, while slightly more than that amount ($393,515) was spent independently to support him.

In the state senate, 23 of the 24 seats up for election were targeted by independent spending. Senate candidates were the targets of $1.4 million in independent expenditures, 78 percent of which targeted just five races in 2006.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Timothy Sheldon was the top target among senate candidates. Working Families Who Have Had Enough PAC spent $159,812 opposing Sheldon’s reelection bid for District 35, and spent $48,278 supporting his primary opponent, Kyle Lucas. Working Families Who Have Had Enough received more than half of its funds ($100,000) from the Progressive Majority, a political action committee created to “elect progressive champions.”22

House candidates were targeted with $1.2 million in independent spending. Three races garnered more than $100,000 each, accounting for $389,687, which is 33 percent of the spending.

How the Money was Spent

Nearly half of all independent spending in 2006—$2.6 million—was made on direct mail, while $1.7 million was spent on broadcast media. Get-out-the-vote activities accounted for $401,967 in spending.

Conclusion

Because Washington state had already allowed corporations and unions to fund independent spending activity with their treasury funds, independent spending was not impacted by the Citizens United ruling. Contributions raised directly by candidates have increased since 2006, while independent spending decreased from 2006 to the comparable elections in 2010.

Washington already requires detailed information about independent spending to be reported. However, the state’s system could be improved by requiring all independent expenditures to be reported on one form (instead of allowing them to be reported on three different forms), and by requiring original source disclosure to prevent shell PACs from forming.

The passage ofSB 5021 by the Washington State Legislature was a good step toward better disclosure; it requires more thorough disclosure and tries to prevent shell games from hiding donors. Among other provisions, the bill changes the definition of “sponsor” to require the original funding source to be listed as the sponsor instead of an agent acting for the original sources. It also makes it slightly harder to shuffle money between political committees, by stating that a political committee may only contribute to another political committee once the committee contributing the money has also received at least ten contributions of $10 or more each from registered Washington voters. The bill became effective January 1, 2012, so it will be interesting to see what impact it may have on independent spending in the 2012 election.

7. Prior to the 2010 election, there were limits on the amounts that could be contributed to ballot measure committees within the last three weeks of the election, but no overall limits.

8. PACs, corporations, unions, individuals, or other entities may only contribute $3,200 to statewide candidates per election cycle and $1,600 to legislative candidates per election cycle.

9. The sponsor of an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication is the committee or person responsible for the expenditure. For example, “Impartial Justice” will be listed as the name of the sponsor at the top of the C-6 form, but in the box on the C-6 where a sponsor’s signature is required to certify that it is an actual independent expenditure, Jason Bennett’s name and address will be listed.